Tempest V turn radius in Aces High

[MiloMorai]

Not on Tempests though..

 & by the way, how does the Ta 152 compare on weight/wing area ratio to the Tempest m.m.?

Not favourably..

Mitchell had more hours in a Tempest than Reschke in a Ta.

Tempest 37.75 lb/ft²
Ta152H-1 41.38 lb/ft²

[J.A.W.]

Mitchell had more hours in a Tempest than Reschke in a Ta.

Tempest 37.75 lb/ft²
Ta152H-1 41.38 lb/ft²

Reschke was an experienced combat pilot, Mitchell was new..

The Ta 152 was a tarted-up FW 190, how many hours did Reschke have on them..

& thanks for those wing load specs m.m., they kinda make your 'out turn' claim unlikely,
unless there was a significant disparity in piloting capability involved, don't they..

[MiloMorai]

a high aspect wing vs a laminar flow wing.

if you say so.

keep making excuses

[J.A.W.]

Or a high lift wing ( Typhoon) vs larger area laminar flow wing ( Tempest)..

& prop disc to wing distance ratio, - effect on thrust/turning? 

Did  FW 190As out turn the long-nose variants?

& m.m., you get so many things wrong, its almost entertaining..

[J.A.W.]

As a general comment, it is not very analytical to determine that the plane-x is 'wrong' because it performs better/worse than plane-y. That line of thought doesn't take into account the fact that maybe the plane-y/both planes are 'wrong'.


Regarding the Typhoon/Tempest...

In a memorandum report on Typhoon, Americans reported the Typhoon's turn radius as "short". Well, is it "short" in AH? Well, that is pretty hard to say isn't it.

In Mosq's turn radius testing Typhoon came 67th out of 103 AH fighters with a turn radius of 714,5ft. Mosq performed the turns as left hand turns. At right hand turns Typhoon would have most likely been more controllable due to its counter-clockwise turning prop and turning that way might have given a shorter radius.


Another general comment...

I'd like to see pyro doing a global review on some aspects of the flight model. Last major across-the-board flight model change was done in spring 2006 (version 2.07). A thing I'd like to see looked at is the lift/drag that the flaps cause in general. I really can't pin-point any particular planes, all I'm saying is that a fresh look is many times a good thing. I have no doubt that it would be a lot of work but I consider flight model to be the bread and butter of AH.

I remember pyro himself saying that he should 'weed out some inconsistencies' regarding the flight model after that 2006 2.07 update. No changes came after the 2.07 update, though.

Wm, as usual points well made..

Widey's (simplistic or sly?) seeming bid to have the Tempest pegged back beyond the `51, turn-wise,
was not well-reasoned, especially if the `51 turn rate is not accurately modelled in A-H..

The objective solution is as you write, to match known test data on a broad base, not cherry-pick
as - what appears to be  - attempted provocation..

Obviously there is scope for improvements & a tension between reality-check & game distortion effects
that can present players with frustration, i.e. Spit XIV wings departing more easily than Spit XVI..

[J.A.W.]

Can we please have this Tempest WEP configuration ( with 28 imp gallons of ADI-juice) - added in the next update?

Awww, can we.. ..huh..  ..please..  ..aww..  ..c'mon.. ..please.. ..aww..


http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%201455.html


Yeah, ok, so it is the Mk 6.. ..as described by Mason..

"The original Tempest V prototype was modified to Mk VI standard & 1st flown in this form on 9 May 1944...

Performance trials at Boscombe Down revealed a maximum speed of 462mph at 19,800ft,
& exhaustive trials were flown to clear the carriage of a wide range of ground attack stores."

How many other recips were flying around at 460+ mph at under 20,000ft before D-day?

[Saxman]

If this would qualify as a field mod, then it shouldn't be added.

Hell, I've been asking to get water injection modeling REMOVED from the F4U-1, even if many of them were retrofit for it in the field, since the -1 wasn't equipped with the -8(W) engine.

[LCADolby]

When the 3D model is updated all will be 'fixed', but I can't see a Typhoon out turning a Tempest, not when the tempy has a spit style wing. A wing that generated such impressive lift with it's own stick shaker buffet in a turn.

[FLOOB]

According to Mosq's list the tempest out turns the spit14. But the spit14 in AH performs nothing like stated on RAF tactical trials of the time.

[Widewing]

When the 3D model is updated all will be 'fixed', but I can't see a Typhoon out turning a Tempest, not when the tempy has a spit style wing. A wing that generated such impressive lift with it's own stick shaker buffet in a turn.

Except that the Tempest had a laminar flow airfoil profile, decidedly not Spitfire-like.

[Widewing]

Wm, as usual points well made..

Widey's (simplistic or sly?) seeming bid to have the Tempest pegged back beyond the `51, turn-wise,
was not well-reasoned, especially if the `51 turn rate is not accurately modelled in A-H..

I don't care which is wrong, the P-51 or the Tempest (or both). I only want something closer to reality.





From here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/sl-wade.html

[BnZs]

Widewing:
It should be relatively simple to find the stall speed numbers for the P-51 and Tempest at a given weight and configuration, then calculate how the listed stall speed is effected by the weight as tested in AHII. If a P-51@50% fuel should have a lower stall speed than a Tempest@50% fuel, but has a worse turn radius, this is decent evidence that the relative turn performance in game is wrong.

I feel that in-game turn testing of the P-51 is slightly skewed by the fact that 50% fuel in a Mustang amounts to a lot more gasoline than it does in most other fighters.

[save]

according to the chart, 190a(8 if you look at competitors) and p47/tempest/109, turns about the same, in AH its very much different.

[Widewing]

Widewing:
It should be relatively simple to find the stall speed numbers for the P-51 and Tempest at a given weight and configuration, then calculate how the listed stall speed is effected by the weight as tested in AHII. If a P-51@50% fuel should have a lower stall speed than a Tempest@50% fuel, but has a worse turn radius, this is decent evidence that the relative turn performance in game is wrong.

I feel that in-game turn testing of the P-51 is slightly skewed by the fact that 50% fuel in a Mustang amounts to a lot more gasoline than it does in most other fighters.

Turn radius testing is almost always done at 25% fuel, zero burn rate. This is to minimize variables as much as possible.

[BnZs]

Turn radius testing is almost always done at 25% fuel, zero burn rate. This is to minimize variables as much as possible.

Oh, I thought it was 50%, bad memory. Still a Mustang at 25% fuel is carrying a higher percentage of weight as gasoline than most anything else at 25% fuel.